shennong posted:Ironicwarcriminal posted:
who doesn't need a state to "run an economy",as noted, the entire premodern islamic world, as just one example. its not like economic activity requires a particular modern western legal structure to administrate it or it ceases
so we're going to reroute our project towards the goal of realizing our historical understanding of the premodern islamic world? haha so are you waiting till the whole society collapses, total desertification, and the wicked people come blinking out into the light? how is this different than the natural progression of the mentally-ill internet marxists, banging their eating utensils and demanding their unprepared revolution?
guidoanselmi posted:
how naive to think there's only military uses for nuclear explosives: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Explosions_for_the_National_Economy
:stalin:
people wanted to do this in alaska to make an artificial harbor. and to irrigate the west.
Crow posted:
you talked about something like 'reverting back to low energy flows', but to me it looks like we're asymptotically approaching a truly apocalyptic shock, something like the way global climate change is being forecast. those are the terms with which we are contending: world-ending monsters and rupturing planes of totality. seizing the state is just a pragmatic gesture, it's not a dogmatic formula, since orthodoxy is just another rupturing plane
im not really sure how this differs from what im saying in any way, if we're headed for apocalyptic shocks seizing sclerotic 20th century bureaucracies hardly seems pragmatic. i mean if i accept everything you're saying, how does taking up arms against the state under these conditions practically advance whatever your goals are? like if we're not just having a wank here and we care about the material conditions of the communities we live in, i'm not sure how you justify throwing the tiny number of ideologically committed people you have availble to you into the meat grinder that would be a conflict with the massively expanded repressive state you're describing
Crow posted:shennong posted:Ironicwarcriminal posted:
who doesn't need a state to "run an economy",as noted, the entire premodern islamic world, as just one example. its not like economic activity requires a particular modern western legal structure to administrate it or it ceases
so we're going to reroute our project towards the goal of realizing our historical understanding of the premodern islamic world? haha so are you waiting till the whole society collapses, total desertification, and the wicked people come blinking out into the light? how is this different than the natural progression of the mentally-ill internet marxists, banging their eating utensils and demanding their unprepared revolution?
where did i say that? i gave it as an example of economic services provided by non-state actors
shennong posted:
as noted, the entire premodern islamic world, as just one example. its not like economic activity requires a particular modern western legal structure to administrate it or it ceases
disagree.
stegosaurus posted:guidoanselmi posted:
how naive to think there's only military uses for nuclear explosives: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Explosions_for_the_National_Economy
people wanted to do this in alaska to make an artificial harbor. and to irrigate the west.
Yeah in the 70s the corrupt right wing Premier of Queensland wanted to do this to the Great Barrier Reef to create shipping lanes lollllll
shennong posted:Crow posted:
you talked about something like 'reverting back to low energy flows', but to me it looks like we're asymptotically approaching a truly apocalyptic shock, something like the way global climate change is being forecast. those are the terms with which we are contending: world-ending monsters and rupturing planes of totality. seizing the state is just a pragmatic gesture, it's not a dogmatic formula, since orthodoxy is just another rupturing planeim not really sure how this differs from what im saying in any way, if we're headed for apocalyptic shocks seizing sclerotic 20th century bureaucracies hardly seems pragmatic. i mean if i accept everything you're saying, how does taking up arms against the state under these conditions practically advance whatever your goals are? like if we're not just having a wank here and we care about the material conditions of the communities we live in, i'm not sure how you justify throwing the tiny number of ideologically committed people you have availble to you into the meat grinder that would be a conflict with the massively expanded repressive state you're describing
i'm not talking about throwing anyone in the meat grinder, in fact i explicitly said it is absolutely necessary to build up a mass movement and large public support before seizing the state. i think you just want to project your problems you have with certain interpretations of 'marxism' on to people that may not hold the same beliefs as you.
Crow posted:
so we're going to reroute our project
actually maybe if you can just tell me what goal of the project is that would help me understand how revolutionary seizure of state power fits into that
shennong posted:Crow posted:shennong posted:Ironicwarcriminal posted:
who doesn't need a state to "run an economy",as noted, the entire premodern islamic world, as just one example. its not like economic activity requires a particular modern western legal structure to administrate it or it ceases
so we're going to reroute our project towards the goal of realizing our historical understanding of the premodern islamic world? haha so are you waiting till the whole society collapses, total desertification, and the wicked people come blinking out into the light? how is this different than the natural progression of the mentally-ill internet marxists, banging their eating utensils and demanding their unprepared revolution?
where did i say that? i gave it as an example of economic services provided by non-state actors
so then what the hell is the problem with working towards building a mass movement that may seize the world 'as it already is', ie. infrastructure, state, etc?
Crow posted:
i'm not talking about throwing anyone in the meat grinder, in fact i explicitly said it is absolutely necessary to build up a mass movement and large public support before seizing the state. i think you just want to project your problems you have with certain interpretations of 'marxism' on to people that may not hold the same beliefs as you.
alright so if movement building precedes state seizure im still not entirely sure why you would rather seize the existing state apparatus rather than smash its repressive power and use the movement structure itself as your organisational tool, but maybe im misinterpreting whats meant by state seizure?
the term oikonomia in premodern contexts was a very different notion than the modern "economy"
We can now try to list in the form of theses the essential characteristics that our analysis of the providential paradigm have brought to light. These define something like an ontology of acts of governance:
1. Providence (governance) is that through which theology and philosophy attempted to confront the division of classical ontology into two separate realities: being and praxis, transcendent good and immanent good, theology and oikonomia. It appears as a machine directed toward rearticulating the two fragments into the gubernatio dei, into the divine governance of the world.
2. It represents, in the same sense and in the same measure, the attempt to reconcile the Gnostic division between a God foreign to the world and a God who governs, which Christian theology had inherited, through the “economic” articulation of the Father and the Son. In the Christian oikonomia, the creator God confronts a corrupted and foreign nature, which the savior God, to whom the governance of the world has been given, must redeem and save, through a kingdom that is not, however, “of this world.” The price that the trinitarian overcoming of the Gnostic division between two divinities must pay is the substantial foreignness of the world. The Christian governance of the world has, consequently, the paradoxical figure of the immanent governance of a world that is and must remain foreign.
א This “Gnostic” structure, which the theological oikonomia has transmitted to modern governmentality, reaches its extreme point in the paradigm of governance that the great Western powers (in particular the US) always try to realize on both a local and global scale. Whether it is a matter of the breaking down of preexisting constitutional forms or the imposition, through military occupation, of constitutional models considered democratic on peoples to whom these models appear to be impracticable, in every case the essential thing is that a region — and, at the limit, the entire globe — is governed while remaining completely foreign.
The tourist, that is, the final reincarnation of the Christian peregrinus in terra, is the planetary figure of this irreducible foreignness to the world. It is, in this sense, a figure whose “political” significance is consubstantial with the dominant governmental paradigm, just as the peregrinus was the figure corresponding to the providential paradigm. The pilgrim and the tourist are, that is, the collateral effects of one and the same “economy” (in its theological or secularized version).
3. The providential machine, while being unitary, is articulated, for this reason, on two distinct planes or levels: transcendence/immanence, general providence/special providence (or fate), primary cause/secondary cause, intellectual knowledge/praxis. The two levels are strictly correlated, in such a way that the first founds, legitimates, and renders possible the second and the second realizes concretely in the chain of causes and effects the general decisions of the divine mind. The governance of the world is what results from this functional correlation.
4. The paradigm of the act of governance, in its pure form, is, consequently, the collateral effect. Insofar as it is not directed to a particular end but derives, as a concomitant effect, from a general law and economy, the act of governance represents a zone of undecidability between the general and the particular, between the calculated and the non-willed. This is its “economy.”
5. In the providential machine transcendence is never given by itself and separate from the world, as in Gnosticisim, but is always in relation to immanence; this latter, on the other hand, is never truly such, because it is thought always as an image or reflection of the transcendent order. Correspondingly, the second level appears as execution (executio) of what was arranged and ordained (ordinatio) on the first. The division of powers is consubstantial with the machine.
6. The ontology of acts of governance is a vicarious ontology, in the sence that, within the economic paradigm, every power has a vicarious character, acts in another’s place. This means that there is not a “substance,” but only an “economy” of power.
7. It is precisely the distinction and correlation of the two levels, of the primary and secondary causes, of the general economy and the particular economy, that guarantees that governance is not a despotic power, which does violence to the liberty of the creature; it presupposes, to the contrary, the liberty of the governed, which is demonstrated through the operation of the secondary causes.
It should already be clear in what sense it can be said that the providential apparatus (which is itself only a reformulation and development of the theological oikonomia) contains something like the epistemological paradigm of modern governance. It is known that, in the history of law , a doctrine of governance and public administration (not to speak of administrative law which, as such, is a typically modern creation) takes a long time to take form. But well before the jurists began to develop its first elements, the philosophers and theologians had already developed its model in the doctrine of the providential gubernatio of the world. Providence and fate, with the train of notions and concepts in which they are articulated (ordinatio / executio; reign and governance; immediate and mediated governance; primi agentes / agentes inferiores; primary act / collateral effects, etc.) are not only, in this sense, theologico-philosophical concepts, but categories of law and politics.
The modern State inherits, in fact, both aspects of the theological machine of the governance of the world, and presents itself equally as providence-State and as destiny-State. Through the distinction between legislative or sovereign power and executive or governance power, the modern State assumes on itself the double structure of the governmental machine. It puts on by turns the regal vestments of providence, which legislates in a transcendent or universal way, but leaves the creature it takes care of free, and the suspicious and ministerial vestments of fate, which carries out in detail the providential dictates and forces reluctant individuals into the implacable connection of immanent causes and effects that their own nature has contributed to determining. The economico-providential paradigm is, in this sense, the paradigm of democratic governance, just as the theologico-political is the paradigm of absolutism.
It’s not surprising, in this sense, that the collateral effect appears ever more frequently to be consubstantial with every act of governance. What the government aims at can be, by its very nature, reached only as a collateral effect, in a zone in which general and particular, positive and negative, calculated and unforeseen tend to be superimposed onto each other. To govern means to allow to be produced the concomitant particular effects of a general “economy” that would remain in itself entirely ineffective, but without which no governance would be possible. It is not so much that the effects (Governance) depend on being (Reign), but being consists rather in its effects: such is the vicarious and effectual ontology that defines acts of governance. And when the providential paradigm, at least in its transcendent aspect, begins to decline, providence-State and destiny-State tend progressively to become identified in the figure of the State of modern law, in which the law regulates administration and the administrative apparatus applies and carries out the law. But, even in this case, the decisive element remains that to which, from the very beginning, the machine as a whole has been destined: the oikonomia, that is, the governance of human beings and of things. The economico-governmental vocation of contemporary democracies is not an incident along the way, but is an integral part of the theological inheritance of which they are trustees.
http://itself.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/kotsko-notes-over-il-regno-e-la-gloria1.pdf
Edited by babyfinland ()
shennong posted:Crow posted:
so we're going to reroute our projectactually maybe if you can just tell me what goal of the project is that would help me understand how revolutionary seizure of state power fits into that
communal brotherhood based on justice and peace
shennong posted:Crow posted:
i'm not talking about throwing anyone in the meat grinder, in fact i explicitly said it is absolutely necessary to build up a mass movement and large public support before seizing the state. i think you just want to project your problems you have with certain interpretations of 'marxism' on to people that may not hold the same beliefs as you.alright so if movement building precedes state seizure im still not entirely sure why you would rather seize the existing state apparatus rather than smash its repressive power and use the movement structure itself as your organisational tool, but maybe im misinterpreting whats meant by state seizure?
hmm how should i put it..
i would say because this repressive characteristic is the right hand to its administrative aspect? as the state dissociates itself from administrating 'public goods' like education and regulatory oversight and focuses more on developing interstitially-constituted private spheres and defense and unilaterally applying financial directives, the repressive characteristic moves away from negotiating public peace and shifts to terror & smooth functioning of international financial directives.
this is not total, though, and things like bureaucratic mediation of infrastructure and technological research aren't necessarily something that a new organizational model can spontaneously reinterpret without first confronting it. are you saying build an administrative center as well as a repressive compliment for self defense from the organizational structure of the mass movement and completely sweep aside all vestiges of the old world?
Crow posted:
You know, its exactly because the ghost of national empire still haunts America that I think it would take the retreat of transnational Capital before seizing the state is a realizable possibility. I think this has been the case in modernity (historically speaking, I'm thinking of Russia and China of course), and I don't really see it as much a failure of initiative or anything, as much as a redemptive Event. Creation necessitates destruction, maybe a plain must be cleared of char before ashes become-phoenix
We got a bank round the corner
aint that a bitch!
noavbazzer posted:
communal brotherhood based on justice and peace
we've got one it's called the UN/Catholic Church
Ironicwarcriminal posted:noavbazzer posted:
communal brotherhood based on justice and peacewe've got one it's called the UN/Catholic Church
*grand spiritual union of American patriots
Now we know who the liberals on this forum are.
Ironicwarcriminal posted:
we've got one it's called the UN/Catholic Church
This is false and dangerous. Google Emanuela Orlandi.
what we can all agree here i think is the importance of establishing and maintaining sovereign and autonomous zones. but crow hints at this, this is a fundamental aspect of protracted peoples war, and the conclusion of that process is the seizure of property. becuase maintaining sovereign zones is not enough!!!!! look at the palestinian authority, but more specifically to this, the israeli bankrolling of the plo. because for all their showboating against the palestinian state, there will be no doubt about pursuing this state, whether this is the state that is allowed (the zionist collaborator palestinian authority) or the state that is "not allowed" (p.l.o.), and they will parade against this sovereignty in the drama of the world stage, but you know in functional terms they have no problem with this sovereignty. this is because they are smart enough to kno this sovereignty is NOTHING when the logic of the space you are operating them is fundamentally governed by the logic of occupation. so you say we are palestine, or you say we are the banlieues, and thats such a vital first step. but it is nowhere enough. because they will build a wall around you and give your smiling leadership enough money to stop organisation and lock you up in prisons. you have to be able to fundamentally be in control, to as much of a degree as possible, of the contingincies in which your zones of sovereignty are allowed to exist. and the zionist regime is only an extreme example of this, this applies everywhere, from every neocolonial distribution of power, to every urban center versus suburban sprawl, to the distinction between city and country. and each of these dialectical relationships have really complex processes and dynamics.
so shennong might argue agains tfundamental repression, but i think more than anything thats ultimately whats necessary. what were seeing, as crow said before, is not a withering of the state, but a really totally strengthening and radicalization of the state. because you look at the zionist regime, and this is really the place is excels, the state is the primary agent in governing spatial logic. palestinians are labrats at this point, where the settler state gets to experiment with and demonstrate the billions of dynamic and monstrous ways they are able to dominate and twist and mangle the spatial self determination of the palestinian peoples. this is where our world is going, everything is establishing walls of apartheids to ensure the part-of-no-part. sothey twist and mangle with the logic of space and distribution, itis NECESSARY that they are not the only ones who can mangle spatial logic. you need to extend power beyond sovereignty, to fuck with the very logic on which things move and settle in the plane of the world, and this is through the taking of property, the taking of the state. because you need repression to manipulate the contingency in which zones of emergence are constructed and maintained, with an iron fist...
shennong it is so noble your intentions, and speculative models, and your apocalypticism , but other people like you arent like you. you will willingly go out into the fields, other petit bourgeois intelligentsia will not. you have to send them to the fields!!! and then you send the fields to the schools, or the schools to the fields too...
IT IS REALLY STRANGE YOU ALL TALK AS IF YOU HAD NEVER READ MAO BEFORE.
r u r a l i z e t h e i n t e l l e c t u a l s
and then thers my post in cyclon thread that touches on appropriate issues ...
Edited by discipline ()
can we make them intellectuals taxi drivers or something
blinkandwheeze posted:
IT IS REALLY STRANGE YOU ALL TALK AS IF YOU HAD NEVER READ MAO BEFORE.
I don't read shit because I'm not a traitor to the peoples revolution. The secret 5-0 will be at your door in two hours, bourgie scum.
discipline posted:Ironicwarcriminal posted:
but only like 3% of the workforce works in agriculture i don't think they need anyone else.lmao what workforce, the workforce of australia??
yes.
i mean yeah you can propose sending us to the mekong delta or something but good luck getting us on the plane unless there's beer and prostitutes at the other end
but that aside, do any actions rationally follow from that conclusion for real human beings?
noavbazzer posted:
so everyone's pretty sure we need to seize that fuckin state because well, mao. never mind actually dealing with states in a real academic way, lets just be marxist tom clancy's.
but that aside, do any actions rationally follow from that conclusion for real human beings?
what are you proposing as an alternative? you do realize, the purpose of the state is to consolidate power and keep a monopoly on force, to allow capital to reproduce and exploit labor effectively?